dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?
- Thread starter farmerboy219
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Definitely not ... The war was already over .. The Italians and Germans were already off the board and Berlin was already flattened and occupied by the allies on 1944 (with air-raids and artillery .. which unlike the nukes at least gave German citizens/civilians a chance to escape or use shelters and later to surrender .. and of course didn't leave radiation behind).
Trying to make it seem like Japan would have fought the entire allies force on their own after all their allies (the axis force) were defeated is absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical ... the main fighting Japanese force wasn't even in Japan .. it was in Manchuria and was defeated by the soviets army .. dropping the nukes was akin to snapping the neck of your opponent in a WWF match because you couldn't get a touch down (he was still struggling) .. it's plain overkill.
And the fact the Japanese refused to surrender doesn't mean they could have done anything at all ... it was just a matter of dignity and their defeat was a matter of time no more no less .. heck the nuclear bombs had three days between them .. the 2nd bomb wasn't clearly a matter of "we dropped a nuke they didn't surrender so we dropped a 2nd one" .. bullshit ... it is very clear it was all planned from the beginning and that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected for targeting long before bombings ever happened.
If the Allies combined forces continued bombing key economical and military targets Japan could have surrendered eventually (their economy was already wrecked by the time) .. even nuking nearby uninhibited islands or non-civilian areas could have pretty much had the same effect considering the shock and awe value of the weapon is the key factor here .. but several theories suggest "other" reasons or dropping the bombs ... an indirect threat to the USSR (evident by what happened later during the cold war) ... testing the effects of nuclear bombs on humans/cities (evident from using two different bomb types .. the scientists were probably happy collecting statistical data about the bombings and the difference between each bomb effects while women, elderly and children were being burned to crisp alive before they even realized what happened) ... and of course in revenge for the attack on Pearl Harbor (which ironically was a military Harbor).
Massacring civilians is unjustifiable even in war (that also applies to the Japanese army massacring civilians in several Asian countries .. those were war crimes as well .. but in on way justify killing Japanese civilians) ... there is a huge difference between carpet bombing tank factories and hitting all the houses around it and dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian city knowing it will wipe out the majority of the civilian population, burn and severely mutilate the rest within minutes and contaminate the land for several generations with strong radiation .. there is no comparison whatsoever .. what happened back then is clearly and obviously a heinous war crime in every sense of the word .. try to make as many excuses to it as you want but it IS a shameful war crime.
Trying to make it seem like Japan would have fought the entire allies force on their own after all their allies (the axis force) were defeated is absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical ... the main fighting Japanese force wasn't even in Japan .. it was in Manchuria and was defeated by the soviets army .. dropping the nukes was akin to snapping the neck of your opponent in a WWF match because you couldn't get a touch down (he was still struggling) .. it's plain overkill.
And the fact the Japanese refused to surrender doesn't mean they could have done anything at all ... it was just a matter of dignity and their defeat was a matter of time no more no less .. heck the nuclear bombs had three days between them .. the 2nd bomb wasn't clearly a matter of "we dropped a nuke they didn't surrender so we dropped a 2nd one" .. bullshit ... it is very clear it was all planned from the beginning and that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected for targeting long before bombings ever happened.
If the Allies combined forces continued bombing key economical and military targets Japan could have surrendered eventually (their economy was already wrecked by the time) .. even nuking nearby uninhibited islands or non-civilian areas could have pretty much had the same effect considering the shock and awe value of the weapon is the key factor here .. but several theories suggest "other" reasons or dropping the bombs ... an indirect threat to the USSR (evident by what happened later during the cold war) ... testing the effects of nuclear bombs on humans/cities (evident from using two different bomb types .. the scientists were probably happy collecting statistical data about the bombings and the difference between each bomb effects while women, elderly and children were being burned to crisp alive before they even realized what happened) ... and of course in revenge for the attack on Pearl Harbor (which ironically was a military Harbor).
Massacring civilians is unjustifiable even in war (that also applies to the Japanese army massacring civilians in several Asian countries .. those were war crimes as well .. but in on way justify killing Japanese civilians) ... there is a huge difference between carpet bombing tank factories and hitting all the houses around it and dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian city knowing it will wipe out the majority of the civilian population, burn and severely mutilate the rest within minutes and contaminate the land for several generations with strong radiation .. there is no comparison whatsoever .. what happened back then is clearly and obviously a heinous war crime in every sense of the word .. try to make as many excuses to it as you want but it IS a shameful war crime.
How is loving the technical design of a German tank make a person a Nazi? :/ I dont follow your logic. And Hitler was a crazy guy, but Stalin Was waaaaay worse. Check your history.thatcanadianguy said:
I dont condone mass murder of civilians. its wrong. I just dont like people saying its justified...it opens the door for people like Bin Laden to say its justified to nuke a target to force them to surrender...its wrong!
It was a bad idea made worse by the fact that those in charge thought it was a good idea. They could have dropped it 15 miles offshore, told them to look out their windows at a certain time and once they saw the power of the bomb could have said "Surrender or the next one lands on one of your cities."
So the continuous firebombing of Japanese cities wasn't enough? It's not bad enough to slaughter thousands of civilians you need to slaughter hundreds of thousands then leave the area heavily radiated? Birth defects, are they enough then?
America has been bombed once in its existance, 9/11. Around 3000 people died, thus I can understand how you would fail to understand the significance of a single bomb vaporizing 140,000 people at once, then burning thousands more to death. There is no comparison, you can't comprehend it. It was completely and utterly unethical, and you speak as if America wasn't on their way to invade the mainland. Why do you think you were fighting them across the Pacific?
Three days after Hiroshima the American government dropped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing 80,000 people and levelling a large portion of the city.
That's not war, that borders on genocide.
America has been bombed once in its existance, 9/11. Around 3000 people died, thus I can understand how you would fail to understand the significance of a single bomb vaporizing 140,000 people at once, then burning thousands more to death. There is no comparison, you can't comprehend it. It was completely and utterly unethical, and you speak as if America wasn't on their way to invade the mainland. Why do you think you were fighting them across the Pacific?
Three days after Hiroshima the American government dropped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing 80,000 people and levelling a large portion of the city.
That's not war, that borders on genocide.
Let me underline... Their Emperor Told them to stop... he was usually only a figure for their people and that he was not to communicate with them... but once he had heard of the americans invetning the bomb, then he send a plea to his people...IronicBeet said:
"Surrender, the enemy has a weapon that can destroy us all... Surrender... Please..."
And they did...
But that did not stop the Americans...
Let me underline... Their Emperor Told them to stop... he was usually only a figure for their people and that he was not to communicate with them... but once he had heard of the americans invetning the bomb, then he send a plea to his people...emeraldrafael said:
"Surrender, the enemy has a weapon that can destroy us all... Surrender... Please..."
And they did...
But that did not stop the Americans...
And they were not Evil... Thats just ignorant to say... They just simpely had a concept of Honour
I dont think it was justified, but I do believe it was necessary and possible the best way to go.
Its a like like the question of sacrificing the few to save the many.
And to think that it was so effective that it haven't been used in war up til this day also makes you think...
Japan would may just still have been hostile today if their initial conditional surrender was accepted.
Its a like like the question of sacrificing the few to save the many.
And to think that it was so effective that it haven't been used in war up til this day also makes you think...
Yes, the Japanese was willing to surrender, but not unconditional, which means that they could have continued running their death-camps scattered throughout Asia.Andreas55k said:
Japan would may just still have been hostile today if their initial conditional surrender was accepted.
Yes. It saved more lives than it destroyed.
Also, what's done is done. There's no need to argue about whether or not it was right to do something we can't undo.
Also, what's done is done. There's no need to argue about whether or not it was right to do something we can't undo.
Actually the Soviet Union as well as Britain and a few other nations knew about the creation of the atomic bombs before their drop on Japan. When Truman finally told Stalin that he had a weapon of 'unusual power' apparently Stalin didn't even seem interested mainly because he had known the Americans had the bomb before Truman did due to spies. Remember Roosevelt had recently died and Truman only learnt of the project when he came to power.SplattererRoss said:
Everyone is looking at this objectively as: How many total lives were lost.
But look at it from the USAs point of view. You drop the bombs, NO more of YOUR soldiers, your people, your citizens die. It's self-defence, do whatever it takes to protect your own country. For that, I say that Truman's decision was a good one. Save your own people, and stop the wasting of resources on war right there and then.
Were I Truman, I would have done the same. Were I the government of America, I would have done the same. Japan was fanatical and its soldiers brainwashed, it took one heck of a blow to cripple them.
But look at it from the USAs point of view. You drop the bombs, NO more of YOUR soldiers, your people, your citizens die. It's self-defence, do whatever it takes to protect your own country. For that, I say that Truman's decision was a good one. Save your own people, and stop the wasting of resources on war right there and then.
Were I Truman, I would have done the same. Were I the government of America, I would have done the same. Japan was fanatical and its soldiers brainwashed, it took one heck of a blow to cripple them.
well, we only gave japan 3 days to comprehend what the hell had just happened.Megalodon said:
imagine if 9/11 was used as warning of greater devastation on another US city. would this country have been prepared to politically respond to such an assault after only 3 days?
many historians argue that the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki was not only radically premature and utterly unnecessary, but perhaps genocidal as well.
It's war. War is hell. That being said, gotta love America's vs. Japan's tactics.
Japan does a sneak attack on America troops.
We dropped leaflets in Japanese warning the people prior to the attack. We asked Japan to surrender prior to the bombings, and still they refused. They also didn't surrender after Hiroshima was destroyed.
Oddly enough, seems no one cares about the fact that Japan attacked us first, in the early morning, flying with the sun at their back so the people on duty at the time wouldn't see them, thus providing as little warning as possible prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. Are those lives pointless just because they were in the military? Even now, the Arizona memorial is full of Japanese tourists paying respects to all the pilots and other Japanese personnel killed during Pearl Harbor.
Again, war is hell. If you are going to bring it upon a people, be prepared for their response.
Japan does a sneak attack on America troops.
We dropped leaflets in Japanese warning the people prior to the attack. We asked Japan to surrender prior to the bombings, and still they refused. They also didn't surrender after Hiroshima was destroyed.
Oddly enough, seems no one cares about the fact that Japan attacked us first, in the early morning, flying with the sun at their back so the people on duty at the time wouldn't see them, thus providing as little warning as possible prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. Are those lives pointless just because they were in the military? Even now, the Arizona memorial is full of Japanese tourists paying respects to all the pilots and other Japanese personnel killed during Pearl Harbor.
Again, war is hell. If you are going to bring it upon a people, be prepared for their response.
That he was on Guam really doesn't matter, and there is no reason that i should have replaced "Japan" with "Guam" in my prior post about the Japanese mentality. It literally makes no sense to do so.Mornelithe said:
And you didn't explain why the Guam aspect was so significant. Two soldiers held out long after the war. It doesn't really matter where they were.
Only an idiot would think that every single person in a country would behave the same way. Which apparently you are.
Maybe a few hundred soldiers refused to surrender when Japan did. How you think that backs up your claim that they were unwilling to stop fighting is beyond me. The vast, vast majority of the country did.